As Alberta’s Tar Sands Boom, Foes Target Project’s Lifelines

Exploiting North America’s largest oil deposit has destroyed vast stretches of Canada's boreal forest, arousing the ire of those opposed to this massive development of fossil fuels. Now those opponents are battling the Keystone XL pipeline, which would pass through environmentally sensitive Western lands as it moves the oil to market. By jim robbins

The Sand Hills of Nebraska are a unique Great Plains prairie ecosystem. The rolling dunes, rising to 300 feet, cover about a quarter of the state, and because the grasses and wildflowers there are adapted to wet, sandy soil, many grow nowhere else. Thousands of ponds and lakes dot the Sand Hills, nourishing the Ogallala Aquifer.

This region is an unlikely ground zero for a growing rebellion against a different kind of sand — the Athabascan oil sands of Alberta, 1,400 miles to the north. But that is precisely what is happening as energy companies seek to construct a pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands — the second-largest petroleum deposit in the world, after Saudi Arabia — across the length of the U.S. to refineries in Texas, passing through the Sand Hills on its way.

And the so-called Keystone XL pipeline is not the only tentacle of the tar sands poised to spread across North America: Energy companies are seeking to build a second pipeline to carry tar sands oil across the wild heart of British Columbia, while other firms are proposing to truck gargantuan equipment for the tar sands project along narrow roads in one of most remote parts of the northern Rocky Mountains.

Environmentalists, farmers, ranchers, elected officials, native people, and a host of others have risen up in opposition to the potential environmental threats posed by the expanding reach of Alberta’s tar sands. Some opponents are concerned that pipelines or oversized equipment running

The fight over the pipelines has become a proxy battle between two diametrically opposed worldviews.

through their communities pose an unacceptable environmental risk. But for others, the battle is about something far larger. They believe that wreaking so much environmental destruction to continue expanding supplies of planet-warming fossil fuels is fundamentally wrong, noting that the tar sands project has razed hundreds of square miles of boreal forest, led to the creation of dozens of toxic tailings ponds, and released vast quantities of CO2. And they are convinced that choking off the tar sands pipelines is a way of stopping, or at least hampering, the development of the Alberta tar sands themselves.

Indeed, the fight over the tar sands pipelines has become a proxy battle between two diametrically opposed worldviews: Those who see the planet as heading toward irreversible environmental harm, driven largely by human CO2 emission from fossil fuels, and those who say that the U.S. needs oil at almost any environmental cost to keep its economy growing.

“The pipeline has become a symbol of where America is going,” says Jane Kleeb, director of BOLD Nebraska, a group working to protect the unique ecology of the Sand Hills. “We’re concerned about climate change, absolutely. America is smart enough to figure out how to do clean energy.”

Among the growing protests over Alberta’s tar sands and the proposed pipelines are a series of acts of civil disobedience planned in Washington, D.C., for the last two weeks of August. The campaign, Tar Sands Action, will feature protests at the White House and will include author and environmental activist Bill McKibben, NASA climate scientist James Hansen, and Canadian scientist and broadcaster, David Suzuki.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would run from Hardisty, Alberta to Port Arthur, Texas.See the map

Roughly 173 billion barrels of Alberta tar sands reserves, worth more than $15 trillion, underlay an area the size of Florida, making it by far the largest petroleum deposit in North America. The strange solid or semi-solid oil, called bitumen, is essentially mined, and doing so means digging up large tracts of boreal forest and releasing a lot of CO2, which is why critics call the product of the tar sands “dirty oil.”

But supporters of the tar sands and the pipelines say that the “dirty oil” rap is unfair. Canada’s environment minister, Peter Kent, says tar sands crude creates just 1 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions generated annually by U.S. coal-fired power plants. It’s really “ethical oil,” he says, because the profits won’t go to corrupt dictators or civil wars.

Oil companies have limited refining capacity for the dense crude in Alberta, and that’s where the biggest pipeline project, Keystone XL, figures in. Each day the proposed Keystone XL pipeline — to be built by Calgary-based TransCanada Corporation — would move 910,000 barrels of a slurry of bitumen, natural gas, and undisclosed chemicals through a 36-inch-diameter, high-pressure pipe, buried four feet underground. The nearly 1,700-mile route would run from Hardisty, Alberta, through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska (including 92 miles of the Sand Hills), and Oklahoma. After connecting with an existing pipeline in Nebraska, the new Keystone XL would begin again in Cushing, Oklahoma and continue on to Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. There, company officials say, they would have the special refining capacity they need.

The $7 billion pipeline, which must be approved by the U.S. State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has drawn both opposition and support across its route. But it has run into the fiercest resistance in the conservative farming state of Nebraska, largely because the pipeline would cross the Sand Hills. Should the toxic brew leak, it could pollute not only the water there, but could seep into portions of the Ogallala Aquifer, the 174,000-square-mile underground reservoir, fed in part by water from the Sand Hills.

Spills are not a far-fetched scenario. In a year of operation, a similar pipeline in the U.S. — the existing Keystone, also owned by TransCanada Corporation — had 11 spills. Most of them were tiny, but the largest, in southeastern North Dakota, was 21,000 gallons, and federal officials temporarily suspended the company’s operating permit. And last year a 30-inch oil pipeline owned by Enbridge, another Canadian pipeline company, suffered a 4-foot-long rupture and spilled nearly 20,000 barrels — 840,000 gallons — of oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, killing much of the aquatic life for miles. It was the worst spill ever in the Midwest.

John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, whose members oppose the pipeline, said a big problem is the involvement of the U.S. State Department, which he says isn’t equipped to assess the environmental risks

of Keystone XL. “They are out of their element,” he said. Nor has the state of Nebraska exercised oversight, said Hansen. “In this void, TransCanada took the short cut through some of the most environmentally sensitive land you could build a pipeline through,” he said. “It’s very fragile. The water is close to the surface and in the spring, water would cover some of the pipeline. To anybody who knows anything about the Sand Hills, the thought of running a toxic pipeline through your water supply makes no sense.”

Petroleum pipelines that carry diluted bitumen, or “dilbit,” pose special risks. Dilbit pipelines use higher pressure and higher temperatures and need chemicals to keep the thick, tarry substance flowing. Some data suggests they suffer more ruptures because of these temperature and pressure extremes.

But the real problem, says Carl Weimer, the director of the Pipeline Safety Trust — set up after three young boys were killed by a gasoline pipeline rupture, explosion, and fire in Bellingham, Washington in 1999 — is that so little is known about dilbit pipelines. “We’ve asked those types of questions to the Department of Transportation and haven’t gotten an answer,” says Weimer. “Unfortunately no one has looked into these things.” The director of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Cynthia Quarterman, testified recently to Congress that existing safety and environmental regulations fail to take this new kind of pipeline into account. Environmentalists have criticized Quarterman for her ties to the oil and gas industry, including providing legal counsel to the Enbridge pipeline company before joining the Obama administration.

Company officials say they are aware of the fragile nature of the Sand Hills. “We take safety and environment very seriously,” said Terry Cunha, a spokesman for TransCanada Corp. “This pipeline would not be the first to cross the Sand Hills. There’s already 3,000 miles of pipe crossing the [Ogalalla] aquifer.” Other conventional pipelines, not dilbits, do cross the Sand Hills.

A second proposed pipeline would extend 730 miles across the wild heart of British Columbia. See the map.

It seemed at first that the approval process for the continent-crossing pipeline would be perfunctory. Because of the international aspect of the project, the environmental studies are being conducted by the U.S. State Department, which approved a previous Keystone pipeline, which runs from Canada to Oklahoma, with little notice. The chief lobbyist for the pipeline company, Paul Elliot, was a deputy campaign manager for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential run, and last year Clinton said she was “inclined” to approve the pipeline, long before the environmental studies were completed. As an outcry arose, Clinton backpedaled, and said she hadn’t made up her mind.

The final environmental impact statement on Keystone XL is due in August, after which hearings will be held in states affected by the pipeline and in Washington, D.C. A decision could come by the end of the year. “If we get the permit we’ll begin construction in early 2012,” said Cunha. The EPA has twice given very poor grades to the State Department’s environmental review, most recently in early June.

Another major front in the battle over the tar sands’ tentacles involves a proposed pipeline and a new tanker port in Canada. Enbridge Inc., whose pipeline spilled crude oil into the Kalamazoo River last year, is proposing a $5.5 billion double-pipeline called the Northern Gateway that would move oil west from Alberta, across 730 miles of British Columbia, to two giant oil tanker loading docks it proposes to construct at the eastern end of a fjord at Kitimat, British Columbia. (The second parallel line would move liquid natural gas to Alberta.) That part of the proposal is controversial, too, for many on the coast of British Columbia have been opposed to oil tanker traffic since the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

Earlier this year though, several First Nations tribes, who own a quarter of the land the pipeline would traverse, rejected an agreement with Enbridge, in spite of a revenue sharing offer that would mean more than a billion

dollars to the tribes. Geraldine Thomas Flurer, a spokesman for the Yinka Dene Alliance near Vanderhoof, British Columbia, said no amount of money could replace the hunting and fishing that sustains the remote towns, should a pipeline rupture. “Moose hunting, salmon fishing, sturgeon, this is something that we do every day, this is who we are,” she said. “The pipeline would cross nearly a thousand rivers, lakes and streams, and one leak could destroy what we have, who we are.” Those rivers include the Fraser and the Skeena, both highly productive salmon fisheries.

Michael A. Levi, an energy and climate change analyst for the Council on Foreign Relations, said that both the energy security issue cited by proponents of the tar sands oil and environmental problems raised by those against the pipelines, are overblown. “All energy development comes with environmental issues,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of choosing the option of zero environmental problems.” As far as the Keystone XL pipeline, “I don’t like betting, but if I did, I bet it would get built.” The Northern Gateway was less certain, he said, not because of the pipeline, but because of the concern over tanker traffic after the Exxon Valdez disaster.

On a third front involving the tar sands, Imperial Oil, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil, is seeking permission to move 207 giant modules — three stories high, more than 200 feet long, and 24 feet wide — for oil production at Kearl Oil Sands, a new mine in the tar sands. The oversized equipment

New technologies for freeing natural gas from underground shale formations have led to a hydraulic fracturing boom across the U.S. that is now spreading to other countries. In a Yale e360 forum, eight experts discuss whether “fracking” can be done without causing serious environmental harm.READ MORE

would travel along a winding, two-lane highway that crosses some of the wildest country in the Lower 48 state; the route was chosen because, unlike interstate highways, there are no overpasses. Environmentalists and locals have organized against the modules, objecting to an industrial corridor that would carry gargantuan equipment through such wild country.

Barry and Bobby Bartlette are co-owners of the Lolo Square Dance Center and Campground, located along the proposed equipment route. They worry that campers with trailers will avoid Highway 12, and that road-widening could harm the water quality of Lolo Creek.

And like many other opponents, they object to the large-scale destruction associated with the tar sands project. “Taking out forests to get oil is devastating and the impacts downstream are devastating,” Barry Bartlette said. “There’s more oil they can drill for and not have those impacts.”

COMMENTS

Let me try to clarify some common misconceptions that made their way into your article.

"Bitumen, is essentially mined, and by doing so means digging up large tracts of boreal forest..."

While some project use mining, most projects are too deep, so use a method called steam assisted gravity drainage. Wells are drilled, bitumen is produced, then the wells are removed. No need for wholescale removal of forests, only at well sites. These wells also remove the need for tailings ponds.

As for the CO2 emissions gap between bitumen derived oil and conventional oil, emissions on the US side are similar to the current feedstock the bitumen would replace, Mexican heavy crude. Emissions on the Canadian side are subject to Canadian rules, including targets for 20% emissions reduction by 2020, and regulations to help industry meet those targets. Until the USA can implement carbon controls at home, I find trying to control them beyond its borders a little weird. I believe reports to the State Department have shown little emissions intensity difference even on a wellhead-tailpipe basis (within 20% of Saudi light, some of the easiest oil in the world to produce)

With regards to pipelines carrying dilbit being somewhat different that normal crude pipelines, while the source changes, the pipelines are substaintially the same. 'Normal' crude pipelines are diluted to their optimal rating either by mixing with lighter crude or other petroleum products. It is no different from dilbit in that regard. Heat and pressure is a function of volume, friction and speed, not a function of the type of material.

Also you should know that natural gas liquids, and liquid natural gas (more commonly known as liquefieid natural gas) are very very different, and making a fundamental error like that really undermines the expert perspective that the article is attempting to cultivate.

Posted by
Kyle
on 05 Jul 2011

Thank you for the excellent piece on the rightly controversial tar sands and Keystone XL pipeline issue. The commenter above makes many of the arguments made by the tar sands industry and Canadian government and unjustly criticizes the accuracy of this article. Here is a quick response:

1) The majority of bitumen will continue to be mined for the foreseeable future. It in fact will grow as the industry grows, as will the immense toxic tailings ponds. The technology described above (in situ drilling) is in its early stages and has serious downsides of its own (it is more carbon intense than mining, its impacts on groundwater aquifers is unknown, the idea that the well pads and roads will be removed is unsupported by the history of gas and oil drilling....) The Canadian Pembina Institute has a rebuttal of the industry claims regarding the tar sands at http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/oilsandsmyths.

2) Bitumen is very energy intensive to produce. The EPA calculated that the increase in CO2 emissions from extracting tar sands oil for the Keystone XL pipeline to be the equivalent of building 7 new coal fired power plants. The expansion planned in the tar sands will wipe out much of the hard fought gains in the U.S. to improve car and truck efficiency standards. As for the Canadian CO2 program, that's more hot air than concrete steps. For more on the impacts on our clean energy economy, see http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/TarSandsInvasion-full.pdf.

3) Bitumen is a highly corrosive and toxic form of oil. Once it is mixed with diluent, it becomes explosive. The proposal to lay a conventional oil pipeline into one of our nation's most important aquifers before there are regulations regarding where and how bitumen can be transported by pipeline is begging for a repeat of the disaster in the Gulf, in Kalamazoo, and most recently in the Yellowstone river. There is a huge overcapacity of tar sands pipelines into the U.S. The Department of Energy found that the Keystone XL pipeline would not be filled for another decade or more. NRDC produced a report on bitumen and pipeline safety issues at http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/tarsandssafetyrisks.pdf.

The U.S. should put the breaks on this project until we better understand the risks - to our planet, to our fragile water systems in heartland America, and to the already polluted refinery communities in Texas.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

For the record, I am an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and have worked on this issue for a number of years.

Posted by
Liz Barratt-Brown
on 06 Jul 2011

I remember Jane Kleeb from MTV. What you don't say in your article is that BOLD Nebraska seems to be based on an anti-conservative premise and she seeks to remake Nebraska in the liberal mold. Never mind that her HUSBAND is a "renewable energy" entrepreneur -- obviously a conflict of interest that might motivate Jane just a skosh.

The fact remains, a whacking lot of oil is moved around this nation with a tiny default rate. It costs too much to spill.

Never mind that if Keystone XL is blocked, then the pressure goes to the Pacific pipeline. The Chinese have no compunctions -- they'll buy it to run their economy. And the Canadians will sell it because they want an economy, too.

Posted by
Dave Skinner
on 06 Jul 2011

The tar sands will obviously be mined no matter what. The environment damage from mining will be the same weather the Chinese buy the oil or the Americans buy it. Once the oil is sold to China it's gone and there is no other area on the North American Continent to replace it.
America better keep it here rather then regret it later.

Posted by
American Patriot
on 06 Jul 2011

Thanks Liz for your comment and work on this project. So many people it seems are uneducated or plain just don't care until it is too late. I can't believe what money will buy and ruin all at the same time. It is a shame that politics will ruin the very thing that supports their greed and sef-serving appetites. When Obama can't drink our water and eat or food, wonder if he'll think of his kids future at that point...like the rest of us already have!!

Posted by
Suz
on 06 Jul 2011

Thanks for a great in-depth article on tarsands and that this goes beyond the traditional big oil vs bog enviro fight. We are trying to protect our land and water from a risky pipeline and from a company--TransCanada--that misleads landonwers and elected officials every step of the way.

David, I do not know you, but your accusation is way off base. My husband is involved in energy efficiency, but how that means than we have a conflict of interest is really far fetched and simply untrue.

The conflicts of interest is with elected officials taking campaign contributions from TransCanada and elected officials in the path of the pipeline taking money from TransCanada to "park vehicles on their land."

-jane

Posted by
Jane Kleeb
on 07 Jul 2011

CN Rail claims it can move oil more energy efficiently than high pressure pipelines. And it does connect northern Alberta with the west coast and the Gulf of Mexico. A 500,000 bbl/day line could be replaced with 7-hundred car unit trains a day. Capital costs would be a fraction. Total cost would apparently be higher but I don't know why if energy use is less as claimed. Rail's also flexible and can grow as needed and divert as required. Chances of spills would be higher but if the enviros force this option they must shoulder some of the responsibility for that. Your choice.

Or the US could stay with their current 3rd, 4th and 5th import sources: Saudi Arabia where some of your money goes to fund terrorism, human rights are ignored and imports are threatened by instability; Nigeria, where byproduct gas flaring raises CO2 emissions and human rights also come far down on the list of priorities; or from your good friend Hugo Chavez. Oilsands are more ethical than some of your current choices. But it's your choice.

China has a great hunger for energy I understand. 10 years ago they exported coal. Now they import. They've invested in the oilsands. They sound easier to deal with. Your choice.

Posted by
Warren Clayton
on 08 Jul 2011

This hunger for energy you talk about well it has to change and now. The energy demands can't be met anyway, so why not here and now tell these oil and gas companies, join in develope new safe green clean alternative energy. This is where energy investments must go for a future, not in the losing dead end fossil fuel game.

Posted by
Bruce Van Tassell
on 11 Jul 2011

I must point out that there are many alternatives to oil such as cold fusuion see:

http://uralica.com/cold_fusion.htm

Posted by
Patrick Helwig
on 13 Aug 2011

Two tonnes of earth need to be destroyed for one $60 barrel of oil.

Alberta is already destroying our Boreal forest at an alarming rate. Currently the tar sands are the size of England and spreading like a disease eating up our north. We must not encourage our son of an oil baron "Leader" Stephan Harper sell anymore of our country for the proposed Keystone XL / TransCanada pipelines.

We must be the change now.

Posted by
Kim Hunter
on 05 Oct 2011

I must point out that there are many alternatives to oil such as cold fusuion see:

http://uralica.com/cold_fusion.htm

Posted by
estetik merkezi
on 09 Oct 2011

RELATED ARTICLES

The Case for a Moratorium On Tar Sands Development Ecologist Wendy Palen was one of a group of scientists who recently called for a moratorium on new development of Alberta’s tar sands. In a Yale Environment 360 interview, she talks about why Canada and the U.S. need to reconsider the tar sands as part of a long-term energy policy.
READ MORE

On Ravaged Tar Sands Lands, Big Challenges for Reclamation The mining of Canada’s tar sands has destroyed large areas of sensitive wetlands in Alberta. Oil sands companies have vowed to reclaim this land, but little restoration has occurred so far and many scientists say it is virtually impossible to rebuild these complex ecosystems.READ MORE

Canada’s Great Inland Delta: A Precarious Future Looms The Peace-Athabasca Delta, one of the world’s largest freshwater deltas, is facing major change as rising temperatures, a prolonged drought, and water withdrawals for Alberta’s tar sands industry threaten to increasingly dry out this vast expanse of waterways and wetlands.READ MORE